174

Oops they did it again.

Oops Trump conned the Beltway press again and oops they fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Trump paraphrasing Brittany:

Oops I did it again, played with your gullibility, got lost in the game…

You think I was cleared, that I told the truth..

I’m a pathological liar…

A fact that the savvy folks over at the View From Nowhere will never accept.

A few weeks ago folks like me and Josh Marshall were voices crying in the wilderness of the MSM’s stenography of lies-see Chapter A.

No collusion! Trump is cleared. The Russia story really was a hoax. The Mueller Report proved Trump’s innocent. That’s a good thing Democrats why aren’t you happy? Better forget Mueller now and just talk about healthcare the next 20 months. Why did we get the Russia story so wrong! How much will ‘President Trump’s’ poll numbers go up after this total exoneration and vindication?

As I documented in Chapter B, it was as if  Dean Baquet’s NY Times and friends learned nothing from Comeygate-and they didn’t.

Josh Marshall also warned at the time that the big guys got played. 

“Entirely unsurprisingly, it now turns out that Bill Barr seems to have significantly mischaracterized the Mueller Report in the quickie summary he released ten days ago. The Times has a story just out about complaints from members of Mueller’s team that Barr had “failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated.” But of course the Times itself was near the top of the list of news organizations who accepted Barr’s spin more or less at face value. It’s worth remembering the lede of the Times initial report on the Letter: “For President Trump, it may have been the best day of his tenure so far. The darkest, most ominous cloud hanging over his presidency was all but lifted on Sunday with the release of the special counsel’s conclusions.” And this new article seems based largely on sources around Barr.”

Ok so Baquet and Friends might be said to have partially redeemed themselves-or maybe the reporters on this piece were able to escape Dean’s edit-unlike poor Eric Lichtblau.

Even so, the bad headline is always remembered more than the subsequent correction, a fact that for some reason Dean and Friends at the NYT still have trouble appreciating.

There’s also this.

“The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions.”

In other words, the authors of the Report had written summaries and overviews for the express purpose of giving a summary account of their findings, ones it would have been pretty logical for Barr either to release or at least refer to at length. He didn’t. Shocking! Kevin Drum had wisely made this point a few times: A report running hundreds of pages certainly has an executive summary and probably several. Why didn’t Barr release them?

The rest of the piece is replete with almost comical spin from the AG’s office.

It turns out Barr is also upset! “Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry.” And why didn’t he release more than his exonerating summary? “According to officials familiar with the attorney general’s thinking, he and his aides limited the details they revealed because they were worried about wading into political territory.”

They were afraid of being political! That’s amazing. And there’s more. “Mr. Barr and his advisers expressed concern that if they included derogatory information about Mr. Trump while clearing him, they would face a storm of criticism like what Mr. Comey endured in the Clinton investigation.” In other words, we’re back to the notional explanation of the firing of James Comey. They were so upset that he’d damaged Hillary Clinton!

So after Comey broke precedent to help Trump win, Bill Barr is going to reassert it to: help Trump win. Sounds like a fair process to me. This was the same canard Trump and Rod Rosenstein used as a pretext for firing Comey.

How risible is this chutzpah is underscored by looking at what Barr actually said about the Comey Letter at the time: yep, he said Comey did the right thing. 

The continuing refrain from Hillary Clinton supporters and other observers that FBI Director James B. Comey’s action was “contrary” to Justice Department policy is flatly wrong. Given the particular circumstances facing Comey, it is absurd. While I do not agree with everything done and said over the summer in connection with the email investigation, I think that, last week, Comey had no choice but to issue the statement he did. Indeed, it would have violated policy had he not done so.

I mean are you there? He’s now claiming he can’t release the full Mueller Report because he doesn’t want to violate policy like Comey did. In 2016 he said Comey would have violated policy if he didn’t do the Comey Letter. Talk about situational ethics and situational policy.

I don’t want to get too deep into this digression but this was also the opposite of the truth:

Earlier this year, everyone was calling for a responsible investigation and rapid resolution of the email matter. The FBI pushed ahead, and in July, Comey announced that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and that he would not recommend prosecution. That announcement was a great boon to Clinton’s campaign — she touted it as a vindication, and, in the wake of Comey’s announcement, her poll numbers appreciably improved.”

Actually her numbers dropped after his announcement-which he shouldn’t have done-as it was against DOJ policy-which Barr now acknowledges but then said the opposite. But this also touches on another point I made in the MSM’s utterly disastrous initial response to the Barr Letter: notice that when Clinton was cleared the MSM narrative was not ‘She’s totally vindicated’ but rather ‘Yeah but she was also extremely careless with classified information.’ Whereas the MSM mostly handwaved the ‘ Mueller does not exonerate on obstruction’ away.’

FN: In Chapter B I documented the fact that the MSM reaction to Clinton’s being cleared was the opposite of the reaction to Trump’s fake exoneration.

The Savvy conceded the point but still felt it was ‘overreach’ for the Democrats to focus on obstruction if ‘collusion had been disproven’-it actually hadn’t been but the MSM totally tripped over its own shoelaces in understanding the evidently too subtle point that just because criminal collusion wasn’t charged doesn’t mean no collusion happened-as Adam Schiff explained in great detail. For more on this see Chapter C 

But the idea that unless you can show collusion, you just have to ignore obstruction shows you how thoroughly successful #TeamTreasonTrump has been in framing the MSM discussion. The notion that obstruction is fine if you can’t show the underlying crime is certainly news to both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In the case of Nixon it was never shown he knew about the break in beforehand-though he had setup the general premise behind CREEP, etc but was kept out of the day to day decisions like breaking into the DNC.

So this statement by Team Mueller is big and leaves the MSM with total egg on their collective faces wether they acknowledge it or not.-this is certainly not the post Mueller era. Indeed, watching Chris Hayes’ interview of Nick Ackerman last night I couldn’t help but again marvel at how little Hayes’ seems to understand about the story he himself has covered in such detail the last two years.

Hayes was still pushing back pretty hard on the idea you can’t trust Barr. I mean just looking at what Barr is saying about the Comey Letter now and in 2016 ought to show you that sometimes a duck is just a duck and Bill Barr is a GOP partisan hack down to his toes-he is now and he was in 1992 when he pardoned Casper Weinberger and 5 other Iran-Contra co-conspirators at the height of Bush Sr’s reelect.

Hayes didn’t like Ackerman’s suggestion that collusion is still on the table after all-wether criminal or not. He also repeated something he’s  said before-that while he 100% agrees we need to see the full Mueller report-I’m not sure if he even qualified it with full or if he’d be roiled again with a ‘Mueller Report’ that Barr edited out all the embarrassing bits- it’s also entirely possible it will exonerate Trump.

Really? That’s why Trump and Barr are so desperate to hide it and dole it out in drips and drabs. I mean Hayes is simply wrong-I’d recommend Chris read Seth Abramson sometime to gain some level of basic literacy on legal questions; a suggestion true of most of the MSM who snark at Abramson’s very name-the very fact that there was an investigation into collusion proves that there was enough evidence for both reasonable suspicion and then probable cause.

Seriously-I know Hayes and his MSM buddies snark at Abramson’s very name as he’s not part of the club-over at the View From Nowhere-but if they read him they’d actually learn something about the law and not make such absurd errors.

What we need to see in the full Mueller Report-which thanks to the Mueller’s team’s intervention-we now have a much better chance of seeing-is if the evidence uncovered during the investigation gives us preponderance of the evidence or even clear and convincing. Regarding the idea that ‘Mueller didn’t establish conspiracy with the Russian government’-all that means is Mueller didn’t find proof beyond a reasonable doubt-for all we know he has preponderance of the evidence or even clear and convincing. If Mueller found clear and convicing evidence of conspiracy with the Russian government-rather than simply cutouts and go betweens-is that to your mind any kind of vindication or exoneration?

Again, though, why pick on Chris Hayes when a supposed legal light like Ari Melber has also tripped over his own shoelaces  regarding this elementary legal concept? As I documented in Chapter D.

So the few of us who were voices crying in the wilderness are the ones who are ‘vindicated.’

Contrary to Chris Hayes it’s pretty clear the full Mueller Report is nothing of the kind.

As John Schindler says-on his private Twitter page, so I can’t link you to the actual tweet:

“The NYT + WaPo 1-2-punch gives serious ammo to House Democrats seeking the full Mueller report. It also means the WH can expect more leaks until the SCO’s REAL work is revealed, demonstrating the fast one Barr played for Donnie.”

Indeed, it’s amazing how great a day yesterday was for those of us who actually care about precedent and the Rule of Law-rather than just winning an election.

I said just. I obviously don’t want Trump to win again and think it would be cataclysmic for the country. But I also think that even if you beat him without holding him accountable it would be in its own way just as cataclysmic setting a terrible precedent. Where’s the deterrence for working with the Russian government to rig an election if you get to serve a whole term even if you lose the reelect?

Again, those who eschew impeachment need to explain why the Founders were wrong and if not Trump then who?

Ok so anyway, Justice is coming:

And yesterday was a big day for it even before the Mueller team spoke out. But first the Mueller team:

Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needs time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.

However, the special counsel’s office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.

Really? What type of sensitive information? Did the SCO and Trump dominated DOJ differ on their understanding of what constitutes sensitive information?

If the Mueller team intended the public to see it, it suggests that Barr & Friends are basically calling ‘sensitive’ anything that embarrasses this fake ‘President.’

Then we get to the pure chutzpah:

Mr. Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Mr. Barr’s thinking. They pointed to the decision by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016 while announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices.

Again we saw above that in 2016 Barr actually claimed that had Comey not done this he would have violated DOJ policy. This was the opposite of the truth but it’s what he said, making it clear that Barr has zero credibility and is nothing but Roy Cohn with a law degree.

Now the Washington Post-my favorite paper, especially now that Cillizza is gone!-has confirmed NYT’s reporting about the Mueller team’s pushback:

Members of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team have told associates they are frustrated with the limited information Attorney General William P. Barr has provided about their nearly two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Trump sought to obstruct justice, according to people familiar with the matter.

The displeasure among some who worked on the closely held inquiry has quietly begun to surface in the days since Barr released a four-page letter to Congress on March 24 describing what he said were the principal conclusions of Mueller’s still-confidential, 400-page report.

In his letter, Barr said that the special counsel did not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. And he said that Mueller did not reach a conclusion “one way or the other” as to whether Trump’s conduct in office constituted obstruction of justice.

Absent that, Barr told lawmakers that he concluded the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the president obstructed justice.

But members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.

“It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.

The New York Times first reported that some special counsel investigators feel that Barr did not adequately portray their findings.

Again, credit NYT for being first. Having said that, while WaPo was second, like the old African-American saying goes, only the truth hurts and the truth is that WaPo’s piece is a lot better-it has a lot of information NYT”s doesn’t have-the Times has the headline that some on the Mueller team aren’t happy with what Barr did but it doesn’t have any information on the substance of their complaints-though as we noted above the headline is important so we should at least be grateful for that! The Times piece dispatches the fact that ‘the findings were more troubling than Barr indicated’ but after the first few paragraphs devolves mostly into Barr’s response-ie, more of his dishonest spin.

The Times gives its readers none of the information they need to realize Barr’s credibility isn’t worth too much.

The Times relies heavily on Barr’s response rather than the substance of the Mueller team’s complaints. WaPo makes it clear specifically the information regarding obstruction is much more troubling than Barr suggested.

I want to quote two paragraphs from the Times I already quoted above for effect:

“Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needs time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.”

Again, the Times is simply reiterating what Barr has already said publicly-this isn’t something new. They give no hint that the Democrats in Congress aren’t happy with what he’s offered much less that they voted yesterday to make up a subpoena for the report they will use if Barr doesn’t meet their demands.

“However, the special counsel’s office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.”

Now let’s quote from WaPo:

Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.

“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter.

So these members of SCO are directly contradicting what the Time’s ‘person familiar with the investigation’-this person likely either Barr or close to Barr in the Trump compromised DOJ.

Beyond that the fact that these folks from SCO wanted the summaries public shows that they have a different understanding of sensitive information than Barr does-which is the reason the Democrats felt the need to authorize subpoenas for the full, unredacted report. No one disagrees in principle with leaving out sources and methods or information relevant to future investigations  for the public the concern is wether Barr takes an extremely broad view of what this means.

Contrary to the claim of Barr & Friends that the SCO never asked him to release the summaries:

“Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said.”

Somebody’s lying…

Regarding the canard that Barr couldn’t release the report because there was too much sensitive information:

The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”

Again this is why the Washington Post is my favorite paper-and the Times is my least. Again, the Times got the headline and got it first and that’s good-at least Dean Baquet didn’t mangle the headline again like with ‘FBI debunks Trump-Russia’ back on October, 31, 2016. But that was the only decent thing in the article. After about five or six paragraphs it’s literally just the dishonest spin of Coverup Artist AG Bill Barr the man who covered up Iran-Contra.

I guess from the 10,000 view it’s helpful-read the Times first for Bill Barr’s partisan GOP talking points and then read WaPo for the truth from Team Mueller who knocks down Barr’s dishonest GOP talking points one by one.

Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.”

Another person familiar with the matter disputed that characterization, saying the summaries contained sensitive information that will likely require redaction.”

That person sounds an awful lot like the Times’ ‘familiar person.’ Notice that WaPo does it right-they quote the dissenter second not first. I’ve noticed that many cable news outlets do the same thing the Times did here-they spend more time on the Trump-GOP rebuttal than the substance of what’s being reported. When the Dems subpoenaed information regarding security clearances a story by Rachel Bade and Tom Hamburger quoted Mark Meadows before Elijah Cummings as I discussed in Chapter D. 

Yes-Bade and Hamburger wrote it for WaPo-but I give the Post the benefit of the doubt-it seems to me that perhaps Bade is bringing Politico Values with her?!

Indeed, yesterday was a very great day for those of us who care about the Rule of Law and precedent even prior to the intervention of Team Mueller.

It begun with the Dems authorizing subpoenas as Ted Lieu noted in the tweet above. Indeed, it’s hard not to see a relationship between the Dem subpoenas and the Mueller folks speaking out. Did they choose the day because of the subpoenas? Wether or not this was related what’s clear is that this strengthens the Dems’ hand as the Schindler quote above noted.

Indeed, yesterday was a trifecta as the stars aligned-ok they didn’t but something even more amazing happened: Richard Neal asked for Trump’s tax returns.

I learned of this where I learned that the Mueller Report was out on that Friday a week and a half ago-while on the treadmill at my gym over at Massapequa Park on the same program-Wolf Blitzer.

When I learned of the report being handed in Wolf was basically unwatchable he jumped to such conclusions over the news that ‘there will be no more indictments’-that was taken for ‘Ok so the President is in the clear’-of course, after Barr’s fake exoneration letter two days later it was even worse.

Blitzer is never necessarily where I want to hear anything for the first time but at least it was good news last night-that Richie Neal has finally asked for Trump’s tax returns.

I suspect that if anything got Neal to finally take the plunge it’s more likely the Center for American Progress than Cooper-though Cooper’s piece really is excellent.

Here is a link to the segment I saw on Wolf where he interviewed Ways and Means Democrat Dan Kildee. It’s very instructive beginning with the title of the link: Why are Democrats asking for Trump’s tax returns?

Notice that the way Blitzer frames it puts the Democrats-rather than Trump-on the defensive right away-they burden of proof is on them not Trump who is the first ‘President’ since prior to Nixon not to release his tax returns. No it’s why are the Democrats doing this ridiculous thing?

And watching it, Blitzer asked Kildee like 15 questions-the first 14 of the tenure: why are you doing this? Is it legal? Are you sure it’s legal? Do you think you have any chance of prevailing? The GOP says this is just sour grapes over the Mueller Report not saying what you wanted–this was just about an hour before news of what the Mueller team actually think of this alleged ‘exoneration.’

Every question suggested great skepticism and cynicism about the Democrats-their motives, the law, their chances, how do they answer Trump and the GOP. Blitzer kept saying ‘But the President says, the President, the President…’

As usual AOC had the perfect rebuttal.

My point is not that Trump and the GOP shouldn’t get a chance to respond but why do so many in the Beltway get their denials in before even allowing the story to breath? Halle Jackson is another master at this-giving a new headline that’s bad for Trump but immediately putting up his tweet or getting his statement before even unpacking the substance of the latest allegation.

Then Chris Hayes had Kildee on and seemed  pretty concerned that the report could actually go public-a prospect Blitzer was very disturbed over.

The truth is the law couldn’t be more clearly on the Democrats side and while they have been very worried about framing this as a tax policy issue the fact is that the law was created for exactly this kind of situation as Hillary’s Center for American Progress buddies make so abundantly clear:

The law was intended to enable Congress to perform oversight

Congress’ authority to obtain tax returns from the IRS is an important part of its oversight powers—and the law establishing it was intended for situations just like the one Congress faces today. It was enacted to enhance Congress’ investigative powers in the wake of past executive branch corruption: the infamous Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s.

The legislative history behind the provision is richly described by University of Virginia School of Law Professor George Yin in a recent article.10 In sum, in 1922, President Warren Harding’s secretary of the interior accepted bribes from businessmen in exchange for favorable no-bid leases on public oil reserves, including the Teapot Dome oil field in Wyoming. Word of the shady transactions got out in the press, and Congress began a multiyear investigation.11 As part of that investigation, Congress sought some of the tax returns of those involved in the scandal.12 But President Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge, initially refused. At the time, Congress had no power to compel tax returns; the president had to approve any release, including to Congress.13 Although Coolidge ultimately granted Congress’ request, this episode helped convince Congress that its requests for tax return information to aid investigations should not be dependent on the president’s approval.14

Around the same time, some members of Congress were also frustrated by their inability to obtain tax information from Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon to determine whether his sprawling business interests influenced his recommendations to Congress on tax policy. Mellon was one of the country’s wealthiest men, and the tax policy changes he recommended to Congress would surely have affected his finances; thus, members sought information on those interests to determine how much weight to place on his recommendations.15 The Senate also launched an investigation into the Bureau of Internal Revenue, now known as the IRS, including whether it was showing favoritism toward businesses owned by Mellon. Senators found their investigation hampered by their reliance on the executive branch to obtain tax returns and by President Coolidge’s hostility to the investigation.16

Against this background, Congress, via the Revenue Act of 1924, gave itself the power to compel the secretary of the treasury to furnish tax returns upon request.17 In approving the provision, legislators cited Congress’ need to review tax return information “to evaluate Administration tax proposals, develop its own tax legislative initiatives, and carry out investigations.”18 The provision faced opposition from some parties, including Coolidge, Mellon, and members of the business community, on the grounds that it could compromise taxpayer privacy. But in enacting the provision, Congress determined that access to tax returns was important for its legislative prerogatives, including gathering information for prospective legislation and performing oversight of the executive branch. The 1924 provision, with some amendments, is still in effect today.

Today’s version of Mellon-Steve Mnuchin-says his priority is protecting the President-rather than complying with the law.

But regarding the deep worries of Wolf Blitzer and Chris Hayes that Trump’s tax returns could actually go public-the law empowers Congress to do just that.

The House Ways and Means Committee has the discretion to make tax information public

IRC Section 6103(f) also gives Congress the discretion to make tax returns or return information public in appropriate circumstances. Professor Yin describes this as Congress’ public “informing function.”27

The discretion. In other words, if Richard Neal wants it to. Of course, many of us have worried Neal was dithering-particularly after Huffington Post piece reported he’d suggested they may not got the tax returns in time for the 2020 election. 

Very soon after HuffPo, CAP-as well as Ryan Cooper and my pieces-pretty much the day after, Neal announced he had asked for the tax returns.

So was it the result of mounting pressure in liberal circles? Based on the wording of Neals statement no-he claims its nothing to do with political pressure. Then Lawrence O’Donnell argued on his show that Neal knew exactly what he was doing, he wasn’t punting, just being meticulous in building as strong a case as possible.

So is Neal a master-meticulous-chess player or a ditherer finally pushed by the tide of liberal public opinion? I’d actually rather believe the former but certainly suspect the latter.

In any case the public must see the tax returns and we might as well start demanding it now-either we are pushing through an open door and Neal’s going to do it anyway or he’s not in which case we’ll have to persuade him as we may have done on getting the tax returns in the first pace.

In any case the public must see the tax returns and we might as well start demanding it now-either we are pushing through an open door and Neal’s going to do it anyway or he’s not in which case we’ll have to persuade him as we may have done on getting the tax returns in t

UPDATE:

Even with egg streaming down its face the MSM keeps falling back on the ‘this is risky for the Democrats’ canard.

Because Ruhle starts from the false premise that the Mueller folks offered no specifics of what bothered them her whole show is basically unwatchable as it’s based on this false premise.

But in a way this is a perfect extrapolation of the (Not So) SmartSet. They’ve chosen their narrative and now want to defend it facts be damned. As if once a narrative has been formed it can never be questioned. Again they’ve learned nothing since 2016. As awful as ever.

Regarding Ruhle the true nadir was when she started whining about the idea that once we ever get the Mueller Report-assuming we do-that ‘do you mean we’re going to be poring over this for the next six months! Gawd…’

Yes Ms. Ruhle it’s unreasonable to expect after two years of this we’d actually expect to read the report, it’s clearly yet another case of us Democrats moving the goalposts in not accepting 23 cherrypicked words as the final word or maybe some redacted mess Barr releases that will then be locked in a closet or something.

You go Congresswoman Waters:

While Kamala Harris is my first choice Warren gets major points for this.

UPDATE 2.0:

UPDATE 3.0:

UPDATE 4.0:

UPDATE 5.0:

Oops Ken Dilanian did it again…

UPDATE 6.0:

UPDATE 7.0:

Allow to sink in the fact that Barr has mishandled this so badly he’s been forced to put out four letters in 10 days.

UPDATE: 8.0

What’s in Trump’s wallet? Dems may soon know.

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book